Jump to content

Longest Lasting? GM Trucks and SUVs Top Lists Of Most Driven Older Vehicles

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Imcrazy Senior Enthusiast

Imcrazy

Posted
Posted

Yeah vehicles aren't really designed to sit that much.. I know a few guys with low mileage older trucks and they always seem to be having odd problems...

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted
Just now, Imcrazy said:

Yeah vehicles aren't really designed to sit that much.. I know a few guys with low mileage older trucks and they always seem to be having odd problems...

If they sit outside, they go to hell fast. Sitting in a garage only seems to harm modern junk. My older cars used to sit outside all winter long unused, and always fired right up every Spring. Never had any major issues either, aside from the occasional oil leak, or hose that blew, or slipped off.

elchilero53 Enthusiast

elchilero53

Posted
Posted

My wife has a 2014 Malibu and has 23K+ on it.  It runs like a top and sits in the driveway unless we are off on vacation, when it sits in the garage.  So far no problems (knock on wood).  My 2017 Silverado 1500  has about the same mileage and has had to have two fuel injector assemblies replaced (both were plugged up).  Both were replaced under warranty.  When the check-engine light appeared, I had Onstar run a diagnostic and send me the code.  I gave the codes to my service provider at the Chevrolet dealer and they showed which injectors were clogged.  They were very very happy to replace them but were concerned about the quality of the gasoline I was using.  I told them I only run Premium.  They complained about the gasoline these days.  I think it was defective parts delaminating rather than the fuel but you never know.

 

Around here, I see new Fords and Dodges but rarely see an older one.  But I see a lot of older Chevy and GMC trucks.  Interesting.

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

My '86 Grand Marquis ran the OE injectors for 28 years, 220k miles without ONE problem - even on the crap fuel we're sold today. My '93 Volvo 940 is still on OE with 170k+ on her. That's the one thing on my '07 Silverado that hasn't failed ... yet ... At 94k now. Everything else has, though, right from the first day I drove the thing with 40 miles on the clock.

 

Bottom line is, it's NOT the fuel in this case.

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I have an 18 year old Acura, 13 and 7 year old Hyundai just maintenance. All on original ac too. My 27 year old Chevy truck still has R-12 working ac.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

Today we are running engines with much much much tighter tolerances.  Running a good fuel is essential.   Premium may work well, but it's going to be better if you are running a top tier fuel.  They will have the additives in them that will do the most good, and even then, it won't hurt to run some proven additives such as BG44K and Techron.

Hate Work Enthusiast

Hate Work

Posted
Posted
On 7/19/2018 at 10:52 PM, Jsdirt said:

They're all junk in the 21st Century. I can assure you, any '96-up vehicle on the road after 10 years has cost the owner a pile of money to keep it going. ....

Mrs. has 115K on her Lexus ES 300, I have 272K on my Acura TL. Have 45K on my LT and have done nothing but oil changes. Junk were the cars from the 60's and 70's that you considered yourself lucky to get 100K on it. And they all rusted out then. Not now. Junk? Think not.

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hate Work said:

Mrs. has 115K on her Lexus ES 300, I have 272K on my Acura TL. Have 45K on my LT and have done nothing but oil changes. Junk were the cars from the 60's and 70's that you considered yourself lucky to get 100K on it. And they all rusted out then. Not now. Junk? Think not.

HAHAHAHAA! Another modern car lover who knows nothing about what he speaks. Dude - your LT is 3 friggin years old!!! It had better still be running great!!

 

Come talk to me in 10 years, and tell me how rust-free your '16 is .... :D

 

There's that 100k internet myth again! :lol:  I have to keep telling every one of you that keeps coming on here with that gem how that myth began - older cars had 5-digit odometers. I can't expect most to know that, since they weren't even born yet. The reason why that myth started is, once you reach 100k, nobody was really sure how many actual miles were on the car! Take my '86 Grand Marquis for example - I'd bet in the condition it's in, people would believe the 53,000 miles odometer reading ... but that's 253k! I bought the car with just 68,000 miles on it 15+ years ago! What a piece of junk! :lol:  SO, somebody buys a car that's showing 96k on the clock, the engine blows, and now they call the car junk. What they don't realize is, that engine has been running for decades, and could have up to 500k miles on it! With regular oil changes, this was common in the day - been there!

 

Yeah, Toyota makes great vehicles -  they're better than GM, that's for sure. But, 60's cars weren't junk, and neither were the early 70's (up to 1972 - the last good year). Emissions crap in '73 ruined alot of great engines, but the cars themselves were still pretty much the same ... that is until '78 when things really went downhill as far as interiors, and car designs themselves. Even with the crappy designs and ugly, cheap styling, those cars would run circles around modern stuff in terms of reliability. The bigger the car then, the more reliable it was. 

 

Do an eBay search for, say, 1955-1972 cars, and tell me how many you see ( you can go back even farther than that, all the way to the beginning). Ever wonder why that is? Think about it. Now look at how many unrestored survivors are there. Some may not look pretty, and some will ... but they are still here!  They didn't survive that long by being junk, that's for sure! Now expand that search to big luxury cars - now you can go '55-'87.

 

Most people had mechanical aptitude in those days, passed down from their parents as a matter of survival. People today are spoiled to death compared to that generation. You'd have to teach most of them how to use a spark plug socket ... and then point out where the plugs are ... Back in those days, minor adjustments were common on long road trips. Took 5 minutes with BASIC hand tools, and you were on your way. That's not JUNK - that's mechanically controlled ignition - no electronics whatsoever.

 

Here's a 1937 John Deere that I got running the other day. Apologies for the 80p, 9 year old (the phone, not the footage) flip-phone footage. Boy, what a piece of junk this thing is to still run and operate 81 years after it left the showroom! 

0721181410.3g2

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted
HAHAHAHAA! Another modern car lover who knows nothing about what he speaks. Dude - your LT is 3 friggin years old!!! It had better still be running great!!
 
Come talk to me in 10 years, and tell me how rust-free your '16 is .... [emoji3]
 
There's that 100k internet myth again! :lol:  I have to keep telling every one of you that keeps coming on here with that gem how that myth began - older cars had 5-digit odometers. I can't expect most to know that, since they weren't even born yet. The reason why that myth started is, once you reach 100k, nobody was really sure how many actual miles were on the car! Take my '86 Grand Marquis for example - I'd bet in the condition it's in, people would believe the 53,000 miles odometer reading ... but that's 253k! I bought the car with just 68,000 miles on it 15+ years ago! What a piece of junk! :lol:  SO, somebody buys a car that's showing 96k on the clock, the engine blows, and now they call the car junk. What they don't realize is, that engine has been running for decades, and could have up to 500k miles on it! With regular oil changes, this was common in the day - been there!
 
Yeah, Toyota makes great vehicles -  they're better than GM, that's for sure. But, 60's cars weren't junk, and neither were the early 70's (up to 1972 - the last good year). Emissions crap in '73 ruined alot of great engines, but the cars themselves were still pretty much the same ... that is until '78 when things really went downhill as far as interiors, and car designs themselves. Even with the crappy designs and ugly, cheap styling, those cars would run circles around modern stuff in terms of reliability. The bigger the car then, the more reliable it was. 
 
Do an eBay search for, say, 1955-1972 cars, and tell me how many you see ( you can go back even farther than that, all the way to the beginning). Ever wonder why that is? Think about it. Now look at how many unrestored survivors are there. Some may not look pretty, and some will ... but they are still here!  They didn't survive that long by being junk, that's for sure! Now expand that search to big luxury cars - now you can go '55-'87.
 
Most people had mechanical aptitude in those days, passed down from their parents as a matter of survival. People today are spoiled to death compared to that generation. You'd have to teach most of them how to use a spark plug socket ... and then point out where the plugs are ... Back in those days, minor adjustments were common on long road trips. Took 5 minutes with BASIC hand tools, and you were on your way. That's not JUNK - that's mechanically controlled ignition - no electronics whatsoever.
 
Here's a 1937 John Deere that I got running the other day. Apologies for the 80p, 9 year old (the phone, not the footage) flip-phone footage. Boy, what a piece of junk this thing is to still run and operate 81 years after it left the showroom! 
0721181410.3g2

I started driving in 1973. I wouldn’t say the 60s and 70s cars were junk. It was rare though to see them last much longer than 100K miles simply because of carburetors and erratic ignition. If you lived anywhere there was snow or ice the bodies were gone by 100K. Once electronic ignition and fuel injection came into play the engine became longer lasting. Oil had a role in that too. That would be by the early mid eighties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

My grandfather and my dad always kept their vehicles at least 8 years, but they also knew how to keep them in top tune. We camped all over the country, worked them hard towing campers, utility trailers, and hauling stone and sand from the local pit for yard projects, and then sold them still running top notch with well over 100k on the clock. I do remember the '72 F100 rusting off the cab mounts in just 2 seasons ... but if you kept oiling the undercarriage every Fall, they'd last quite a bit longer. That Ford was an anomaly - I've never seen a truck rust faster than that. Although my Silverado is pretty close, I nipped that in the bud with regular oilings. The paint is another story, though - have blisters forming over the wheel wells already. So much for garaging ...

 

My dad put 98k on his '65 Mustang in 2 years. He was stationed up in Brunswick, ME, and had aunts, uncles, cousins, and girlfriends in Nova Scotia. Back and forth from central MA to there will rack the miles up, which he did. Nothing but regular tune ups, and oil changes. That car is probably still out there somewhere if the rust didn't get it. The odometer rolled over 3 years before he sold it to the next guy. Probably close to 200k on that one.

elchilero53 Enthusiast

elchilero53

Posted
Posted

Another thing about older cars (pre-1990) is that they had a LOT more metal in them (i.e. steel).  They also weighed more and had lower horse power/torque numbers than today.  I was comparing motor specifications last week and was stunned at the differences even 20 years ago.  Yet we pulled trailers with them and never gave it much thought.  They were a little slow on long, steep grades, but they made it.

As for the odometer, I had a '76 Ford F350 Super Camper Special with a 390 V8 that I traded in at 185,000+ miles to buy a 1990 F150 Lariat 4X4.  The salesman looked at the odometer (it was 5 plus 1/10 mile digits), then opened the driver door all the way and crawled face up under the dashboard.  He wrote numbers down on his note pad and said "looks good".  I asked him why he looked under the dashboard.  He said that there is another hidden odometer that they used to verify the dashboard odometer on Ford cars an pickup trucks.  Anyway, later, the 1/10 part of the odometer was dropped and it became a six-figure, full miles-only odometer.

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

Yeah, the HP numbers were low, but they had quite a bit of torque. I miss that. I was content with my '72 El Camino signing off power-wise around 4,500 RPM - that car would pull anything, and leave one-legged patches for as long as you stayed on the pedal. :)

 

The other thing is, if you did blow an engine, you'd have a new one in it in an afternoon! Those days are long gone now, unfortunately ...

elchilero53 Enthusiast

elchilero53

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Jsdirt said:

Yeah, the HP numbers were low, but they had quite a bit of torque. I miss that. I was content with my '72 El Camino signing off power-wise around 4,500 RPM - that car would pull anything, and leave one-legged patches for as long as you stayed on the pedal. :)

 

The other thing is, if you did blow an engine, you'd have a new one in it in an afternoon! Those days are long gone now, unfortunately ...

Yeah, now you have to spend a day moving all of the shrouds and pollution control stuff out of the way just to see the engine! ?

Jsdirt Senior Enthusiast

Jsdirt

Posted
Posted

I hear that. Spark plug changes on some newer models take as long as some transmission swaps used to back in the day.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...